Dr. Sripathi Rao Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THEM IN SPL.CASE NO.5021/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 5(J),(II), 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.376(F), 313, 201, 506 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.26 of 2019 of Dakshina Kannada Women Police Station, pending in Spl.Case No.5021 of 2020 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, DK, Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 376(f), 313, 201 and 506 of IPC, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

¶28

Heard Sri S Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Asma Kouser, learned Additional State

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3474 CRL.P No. 10291 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

¶32

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶34

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶35

REASONS

¶36

Petitioner No.1 being accused No.3 is said to be the Managing Director of Pragathi Speciality Hospital, Puttur and petitioner No.2 being accused No.2 is the Gynecologist working in the said hospital. PSI of Dakshina Kannada Women Police Station, registered Crime No.26 of 2019 on 25.12.2019 at 23.40 hours on the basis of first information of the victim aged 16 years. The statement of the victim was recorded when she was admitted in Pragathi Speciality Hospital run by these petitioners. On the basis of FIR, investigation was undertaken during which, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:3474 CRL.P No. 10291 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Cr.P.C. and the statement of mother of the victim were recorded. Similarly, statement of the doctors who was working in Pragathi Speciality Hospital was also recorded. The final report came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Section 21 of POCSO Act and under Section 201 of IPC. Therefore, it is the only allegations made against these petitioners that they have failed to report regarding the offence in question as required under Section 19 of POCSO Act.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the scanning report issued by Chirayu Scan Center dated 24.12.2019 as referred to by Dr.Thrimurthy. Therefore, it is clear that this scanning report was not taken in the hospital that belongs to the petitioners. The copy of discharge summary issued by Pragathi Speciality Hospital belonging to the petitioners is part of the charge sheet, according to which, the victim was admitted to the hospital on 24.12.2019 at 12.55 p.m. and was discharged on 26.12.2019 at 2.50 p.m.

¶42

The victim was admitted to the hospital complaining

¶43

bleeding P/V since afternoon and also with the history of irregular cycle. Immediately, the victim was admitted and she

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:3474 CRL.P No. 10291 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

was treated. It was found that there was already abortion and police intimation was sent. The police intimation sent by Pragathi Speciality Hospital is also part of the charge sheet, according to which, the victim admitted to the hospital with history of bleeding P/V and amenorrhea along with scanning report. There is also reference to the intimation already given to Puttur Town Police about the incident and it is stated that now the patient is clinically stable, hence fit for discharge and requested the police to do the needful. This intimation is dated 26.12.2019. Even though, the intimation is dated 26.12.2019, the first information was already registered on 25.12.2019 at 23.40 hours. In that light, reference to intimation already sent by the hospital as mentioned in the police intimation dated 26.12.2019 and also in the discharge summary dated 26.12.2019 is to be taken into consideration. Obviously, immediately after admission of the victim who was minor, the oral intimation was given to the jurisdictional police i.e., Town Police Station, Puttur. Thereby, the hospital authorities have complied with the requirement as required under Section 19 of POCSO Act. But for this intimation, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to know about admission of the minor

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:3474 CRL.P No. 10291 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

girl and she undergoing abortion to get her statement for the purpose of registration of the criminal case.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners drawn my

¶53

attention to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sr.Tessy Jose and Others Vs State of Kerala¹ and X Vs The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and another² , in support of his contention.

¶54

The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate discloses that she had gone to the hospital run by the petitioners along with scanning report. The documents referred to above also disclose that scanning was initially done in Chirayu Scan Center, Puttur and thereafter, the victim had gone to Pragathi Speciality Hospital. Therefore, the contention of prosecution that scanning was done in the hospital belonging to accused No.2 cannot be accepted.

¶55

The Medical Board, DK, Mangaluru has submitted its answers to the specific questions raised by the Investigating

¶56

1 (2018) 18 SCC 292

¶57

2 (2023) 9 SCC 433

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:3474 CRL.P No. 10291 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Officer. Such answers disclose that the victim was admitted to Pragathi Speciality Hospital with a history of bleeding and she was attended by the doctor. The documents also disclose that sample was collected by the doctor and have produced before the Investigating Officer.

¶62

The statement of the mother of the victim was also

¶63

recorded by the Investigating Officer, which supports the contention taken by the petitioners and evidenced by the documents that are produced along with charge sheet.

¶64

The report of the Medical Board dated 26.12.2019 is also part of the charge sheet which also supports the contention taken by the petitioners that the victim came to the hospital along with the scanning report complaining bleeding with history of irregular cycle.

¶65

Accused No.2 being the duty doctor noticed that

¶66

she had undergone abortion. Therefore, immediately she was admitted to the hospital and was treated. Samples were collected and forwarded it to the police. In the meantime, local police i.e., Town Police Station, Puttur were informed about the

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:3474 CRL.P No. 10291 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

incident. Based on the same, PSI Town Police had rushed to the hospital, recorded the statement of the victim which is the basis to register FIR. Later the victim was discharged and the final police intimation in writing was issued making it clear that oral intimation was already given.

¶71

These facts and circumstances, which is evidenced

¶72

from the charge sheet disclose that there was compliance of Section 19 of POCSO Act by the petitioners. Inspite of that, the Investigating Officer filed the final report without any basis. Therefore, registration of criminal case and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law. Hence, the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶75

(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the

¶76

petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.26 of 2019 of Dakshina Kannada Women Police Station, pending in Spl.Case No.5021 of 2020 on the file of the learned V Additional District

¶77

9 -

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:3474 CRL.P No. 10291 of 2022

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

and Sessions Judge, DK, Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 376(f), 313, 201 and 506 of IPC, is hereby quashed.

¶81

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶82

*bgn/CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Dr. Sripathi Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sripathi Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nirmala Vs B. R. Basavarajappa

Sri. Venkatesh a P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sheela G Nayak Vs State by

Peerapasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sanjay Gowda Kottigehara Vs the State of Karnataka